PAPHILAD-L Archives

Archiver > PAPHILAD > 2006-08 > 1154697253


From: eile <>
Subject: Re: [PAPHL] mystery
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 06:14:13 -0700
References: <l03010d00c0f7b3bfe93c@[205.216.79.27]>
In-Reply-To: <l03010d00c0f7b3bfe93c@[205.216.79.27]>


Yes, but how can it be that they both lived at the same address in
1911, with one of them claiming the other was dead?

If this is an error, and he was dead or gone in 1911, are massively
gross errors like this in the directories common?

Paul

On 3 Lún 2006, at 7:16 am, Robert M Lightcap wrote:

> Paul,
>
> I have found a similar circumstance in my family where a woman, who
> had been abandoned by her husband, appeared in a census as a widow,
> while her husband appeared in the same census living on the other side
> of town with his sister. I think that, posibly out of pride or to
> just simplyfy matters, many abandoned women told the data takers that
> they were widows.
>
> Bob Lightcap
>
> ----------------- wrote----------------
>
>> I have a relative who disappears from the Philly City Directories, and
>> then re-appears years later, while his wife re-appears as a widow.
>> Family history says he left her and went back to Ireland during these
>> years.
>>
>> Here it is:
>> Philly City Directories
>> 1901-1906 George Dougherty, fireman, h 1139 S 23rd St
>>
>> 1910 Fed. Census shows Margaret Dougherty as "M" (married), but she is
>> the woman of the house, with just her and her kids listed.
>>
>> Philly City Directories
>> 1911 George Dougherty, laborer, h 1139 S 23rd St
>> 1911 Margaret Dougherty, widow Geo, h 1139 S 23rd St
>>
>> George does not appear again in the directories. He apparently did
>> not
>> die in Philly, at least not from 1910-1920.
>>
>> Could a dead man show up in the directories in 1911 after not showing
>> snce 1906? Were such massive errors made back then (if it was an
>> error)?
>>
>> best,
>> Paul
>
>
>


This thread: